NationStates Jolt Archive

Zero Pollution Motors (http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/106040/Air-Cars:-A-New-Wind-for-America%27s-Roads) is planning to make a car that runs on compressed air. According to the article it will be capable of running at speeds of 35 MPH for about 60 miles running on no fuel other than a full tank of compressed air. Want to go on the highway? No problem, "On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil." According to the article that mode gets approximately 106 MPG. Besides, what geek doesn't want a ZPM?

It will burn...

Not pollution free. Try again.

Schweet. I need to get one. Not as expensive as I thought either. But chances are it'll fail because of how it looks.

Not pollution free. Try again.

Did I say it was? I'm not the one who named the company.

Not pollution free. Try again.

It's a lot better than what we're using now.

It's weird looking but I like it

Schweet. I need to get one. Not as expensive as I thought either. But chances are it'll fail because of how it looks.

I'm just hoping my wife will fit in one. At six feet tall she needs a lot of leg room.

It's a lot better than what we're using now.

I'm just being picky. Now if they could put the engine in an old style Mini they'd be on to a winner.

I'm just being picky. Now if they could put the engine in an old style Mini they'd be on to a winner.

If they could do that I'd buy 3.

I wonder what happens if the reservoir bursts (and you're sitting in the tiny little car with it).

wow, what a butt-ugly car.

If I remember correctly, didn't (or isn't) some legislators in California trying to ban electric cars and this air car from the roads since they do not make enough noise to alert the blind pedestrians that a car is approaching.

For those to lazy to google,

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-prius-052808.html
http://www.manufacturing.net/News-California-Green-Cars-Need-More-Noise.aspx?menuid=284
http://www.motorauthority.com/california-studying-ways-to-make-hybrids-louder.html

I wonder what happens if the reservoir bursts (and you're sitting in the tiny little car with it).

I'm sure they'll find that out in the crash tests.

If I remember correctly, didn't (or isn't) some legislators in California trying to ban electric cars and this air car from the roads since they do not make enough noise to alert the blind pedestrians that a car is approaching.

Easy enough to solve. Install a bell or whistle powered by the cars motion.

<edit: Or something electric that makes it make a Jetsons car noise.>

I wonder what the insurance will be like on that thing? (not that I'd be caught dead in it)

also with three wheels I'd be worried about Mr Bean

I wonder what happens if the reservoir bursts (and you're sitting in the tiny little car with it).

Perhaps you are unaware that current cars run on a volatile and explosive mixture of hydrocarbons?

Honestly - the 'yeah, but what if it crashes' excuse has been used for CAV's and CNGVs and the like pretty much ever since they were suggested, while apparently ignoring the fact that - if you want to make shit explode and burn - we're currently using some of the best technology for doing that.

From what I recall, MDI (the developer) were talking about the safety issues of 'pressurised' vehicles a couple of years back, and were saying they had the problems about solved.

Also - there are already vehicles running on pressurised gasses actually ON American roads, so it's not like we're talking a new world order of danger.

Perhaps you are unaware that current cars run on a volatile and explosive mixture of hydrocarbons?

Honestly - the 'yeah, but what if it crashes' excuse has been used for CAV's and CNGVs and the like pretty much ever since they were suggested, while apparently ignoring the fact that - if you want to make shit explode and burn - we're currently using some of the best technology for doing that.

From what I recall, MDI (the developer) were talking about the safety issues of 'pressurised' vehicles a couple of years back, and were saying they had the problems about solved.

Also - there are already vehicles running on pressurised gasses actually ON American roads, so it's not like we're talking a new world order of danger.

Methinks a fuel cell runs at a much lower pressure, as do any natural gas vehicles. Hydrogen can be kept in a hydride form at very low pressure.

Gasoline doesn't explode quite as easily as you think - and usually not from the simple act of filling it.

It's easy to overfill a pressurized tank, especially one that sounds like it will be at a higher pressure than a SCUBA tank.

Perhaps you are unaware that current cars run on a volatile and explosive mixture of hydrocarbons?

Honestly - the 'yeah, but what if it crashes' excuse has been used for CAV's and CNGVs and the like pretty much ever since they were suggested, while apparently ignoring the fact that - if you want to make shit explode and burn - we're currently using some of the best technology for doing that.
Gas powered cars may catch fire, but the tanks never explode, unless the car itself is made of explodium.

Methinks a fuel cell runs at a much lower pressure, as do any natural gas vehicles. Hydrogen can be kept in a hydride form at very low pressure.

Gasoline doesn't explode quite as easily as you think - and usually not from the simple act of filling it.

It's easy to overfill a pressurized tank, especially one that sounds like it will be at a higher pressure than a SCUBA tank.

Where are you getting your high pressure estimates from? I posted about MDI a couple of years ago in another fuel debate - you could always check their site, I suppose...

Gasoline explodes EXACTLY as easily as I think it does, actually. Indeed, it wouldn't be much use in internal combustion engines if it didn't. Just because you're unaware of the risks most of us deal with everyday, at the pump - doesn't mean there are no hazards.

As for the 'it's easy to over-pressurise'... yes, that's why they make regulators.

Gas powered cars may catch fire, but the tanks never explode, unless the car itself is made of explodium.

I didn't say the tanks explode.

Do keep up.

Now, if they could just harness the power in Obama's speeches/infomercials and funnel it into this...

Though it has its merits, I wouldn't be caught dead in that car.

Now, if they could just harness the power in Obama's speeches/infomercials and funnel it into this...

<wonders how many Fass could power . . .>

<wonders how many Fass could power . . .>

I need power none, for to you I am even above air.

I didn't say the tanks explode.

Do keep up.
You said that there is no more effective way to generate an explosion than with a gas powered car. This is not true.
Now, if they could just harness the power in Obama's speeches/infomercials and funnel it into this...
Settle down, dearie. He isn't the President yet, you still have another 36-48 hours before you have to hate him and everything he does on principle.

Settle down, dearie. He isn't the President yet, you still have another 36-48 hours before you have to hate him and everything he does on principle.

His socially conservative stances won't change regardless his status as the negro that withstood or not a notoriously racist populace behind the voting curtain.

You said that there is no more effective way to generate an explosion than with a gas powered car. This is not true.


Which is why I didn't say what you said I said.

Can't read? Just lying? Trying to make a point regardless of what was actually said?

what about all of the explosions just from a static electricity spark going off while gas is being pumped? This kills millions of people a day.

it says the top speed is 35mph, and then in the next paragraph it says it can 'cruise at interstate speeds'... which one is it? you'd wind up dead if you went 35mph on the motorways round here. it has to go faster if you plan to go further than down to the local shops

if it went faster, i might be interested. also if it looked a bit less wank. plus, Tata build some terrifyingly un-safe cars... lots of vids on youtube of just how tiny and dangerous many of their cars are.


kinda cool though, on the plus side

top speed while using only compressed air I believe.

Zero Pollution Motors (http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/106040/Air-Cars:-A-New-Wind-for-America%27s-Roads) is planning to make a car that runs on compressed air. According to the article it will be capable of running at speeds of 35 MPH for about 60 miles running on no fuel other than a full tank of compressed air. Want to go on the highway? No problem, "On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil." According to the article that mode gets approximately 106 MPG. Besides, what geek doesn't want a ZPM?

ZPM? (http://www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/wiki/Zero_Point_Module_(ZPM))

BTW, where's the rest of it?

So, when does the full-size luxury version come out? I want leather seats and zebrano wood trim.

So, when does the full-size luxury version come out? I want leather seats and zebrano wood trim.

I think the problem is if you put in all that junk it wouldn't go anywhere.

Reminds me of the time Top Gear made a car into a cottage by pouring half a ton of concrete in the bottom and adding armchairs

It's a lot better than what we're using now.

until 4 people want to go somewhere. its a one seater. so 25 gallons per person so slightly worse then what my car does. and if i fit 5 in my car it performs considerably worse.

As usual hippie dreams are smashed by reality.

until 4 people want to go somewhere. its a one seater. so 25 gallons per person so slightly worse then what my car does. and if i fit 5 in my car it performs considerably worse.

As usual hippie dreams are smashed by reality.

I meant as far as pollution goes. Of course, something like the car being discussed would be highly impractical where I live because you'd never be able to get it out of the driveway after a halfway decent snow.

Zero Pollution Motors (http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/106040/Air-Cars:-A-New-Wind-for-America%27s-Roads) is planning to make a car that runs on compressed air. According to the article it will be capable of running at speeds of 35 MPH for about 60 miles running on no fuel other than a full tank of compressed air. Want to go on the highway? No problem, "On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil." According to the article that mode gets approximately 106 MPG. Besides, what geek doesn't want a ZPM?

Problem #1:
Tesla Motors is in trouble. If *they* can't make it with Hollywood types actually BUYING their cars, what hope does ZPM have? I mean, the Teslas have the added advantage of being desireable.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10066986-54.html

Problem #2:
Besides looking cooler than the ZPM, this has more horsepower:
http://www.gunners4life.com/forum/avatars/trabant10-full(1).jpg

I meant as far as pollution goes. Of course, something like the car being discussed would be highly impractical where I live because you'd never be able to get it out of the driveway after a halfway decent snow.

4 or 5 people go somewhere over 60 miles away or drive at highway speed (which who doesn't take the highways into work in the morning from the burbs? ) This thing actually pollutes more then a regular 4 cylinder.

Also i wonder how many kilowatts are used to pressurize it over night. Not like electricity is pollution free.

compressed air is a fine clean way of storing energy and using stored energy as a means of propulsion. of course like electricity as well, how clean you're getting out of it, depends entirely on how the energy was put in the bottle. one thing it isn't, is perpetual motion.

yes, like regenerative breaking, some of the kenetic energy from going down hill can maybe be used to pump a little back in, but not really so much as all that. not even close to the kind of perpetual motion i've heard this system occasionally described as very nearly being.

i think stored energy as a means of propelling mechanical transportation is indeed a very much better idea then burn anything as is done today in conventional engine propulsion.

compressed air is simply one of the several practical means of doing so, and one of the even fewer that get arround the undesirable chemical problem you have with electrical storage batteries. flywheels, aka the perry people mover, are another.

i'm definately NOT panning the concept, just also pointing out that it is no absolute panacea. nothing is. but every alternative to burning anything to propel mechanical transportation IS a good one.

(even batteries are better then oil, coal, and fuel crops, so on, anything that its energy comes from combustion i.e. burning it. batteries have one offsetting compensation to their chemical downside, and that is, in connection with a light enough vehicule, onboard solar charging becomes a real possibility, and in a sense cleanest of all. you do still, any time you use compressed air as a source of motive power, and i think most people who use air powered tools are familiar with this, lubricants of some sort usually need to be added to the air stream. and of course anything that has moving parts nees lubrication too.
the least amount/number of moving parts is again electrical. today's conventional internal combustion is the monster there too. even clockworks would likely have fewer, and that is another, completely mechanical, way of storing energy. again, however you store it you do have to refill it. and again though, the use of ANY and every form of stored energy is environmentally superior to the use combustion in any form using any fuel)

compressed air is a fine clean way of storing energy and using stored energy as a means of propulsion. of course like electricity as well, how clean you're getting out of it, depends entirely on how the energy was put in the bottle. one thing it isn't, is perpetual motion.

yes, like regenerative breaking, some of the kenetic energy from going down hill can maybe be used to pump a little back in, but not really so much as all that. not even close to the kind of perpetual motion i've heard this system occasionally described as very nearly being.

i think stored energy as a means of propelling mechanical transportation is indeed a very much better idea then burn anything as is done today in conventional engine propulsion.

compressed air is simply one of the several practical means of doing so, and one of the even fewer that get arround the undesirable chemical problem you have with electrical storage batteries. flywheels, aka the perry people mover, are another.

i'm definately NOT panning the concept, just also pointing out that it is no absolute panacea. nothing is. but every alternative to burning anything to propel mechanical transportation IS a good one.

Depends on how much electricity they use. 60 miles is about 2 gallons in my car. the fact they don't mention how much electricity they use might suggest that coal and natural gas plants will have to burn more then 2 gallons worth of fuel to fill this tank.
In which case this vehicle may add to pollution more so then it subtracts.

Problem #2:
Besides looking cooler than the ZPM, this has more horsepower:
http://www.gunners4life.com/forum/avatars/trabant10-full(1).jpg

Got some proof to back that up?

ZPM? (http://www.stargate-sg1-solutions.com/wiki/Zero_Point_Module_(ZPM))


Yep, that's what I was going for.

Depends on how much electricity they use. 60 miles is about 2 gallons in my car. the fact they don't mention how much electricity they use might suggest that coal and natural gas plants will have to burn more then 2 gallons worth of fuel to fill this tank.
In which case this vehicle may add to pollution more so then it subtracts.

obviously 'the grid' doesn't HAVE to be feed by coal et all burning. you're absolutely right on about that being 'the other half' of the equasion.

photovoltics on every roof and windmills on every hill, geothermal wherever it can, tidal and wave action, feeding every clean method of generating electricity into the grid, can, and ultimately will some day have to anyway, replace the nearly equal diversity of 'dirty' ways of generating it we have now.

so you can't absolutely say that stored energy, the energy that is stored, HAS to come from how we're mostly doing it now.

so generating electricity, or even compressed air directly, if you do THAT cleanly TOO, THEN you have this holy grail of clean, or relatively ALMOST clean, mechanical transportation.

there are also energy efficiencies to be gained by a lesser number of public transit vehicules then a large number of individually owned and indentured to, automobiles, and even more, to putting these public vehicules, transportation systems, on some sort of reduced friction guideways, such as flanged wheel on steel rail.

the optimal is to combine all of these advantages, not expect any single one to carry the whole job.

so while a 'clean car' however we achieve THAT is generally a step in a very good direction, it is only after all, one step among several toward and environmentally compatible system of mechanical transportation.

and of course the spoon full of sugar factor can't be overlooked. making the solutions attractive to those who will be using them, in order for them to be implimented at all, sooner then other realities absolutely force them to anyway.

i'm sure that's why cleaner CARS are being promoted, as emotionally attatched to personal transportation as people, most people don't see the hidden costs of, the realities of their indenture to cars as a system.

but the car really isn't the most practical system in a vast diversity of contexts, including the situations the vast majority of people live in today.

this idea of stored/clean energy, compressed air or otherwise, can of course, be even more adventagiously applied to public transit, guideway or even highway, vehicules and systems.

wow, what a butt-ugly car.

:rolleyes: Yeah, 'cause THAT's important when trying to solve a chemical/mechanical problem.

it says the top speed is 35mph, and then in the next paragraph it says it can 'cruise at interstate speeds'... which one is it? you'd wind up dead if you went 35mph on the motorways round here. it has to go faster if you plan to go further than down to the local shops.

Uh, read the article much?

obviously 'the grid' doesn't HAVE to be feed by coal et all burning. you're absolutely right on about that being 'the other half' of the equasion. in the US it is 60-80%(depending on region) from these dirty sources


photovoltics on every roof and windmills on every hill, geothermal wherever it can, tidal and wave action, feeding every clean method of generating electricity into the grid, can, and ultimately will some day have to anyway, replace the nearly equal diversity of 'dirty' ways of generating it we have now. but would cost much much more (if it were cheaper after all it would already be done)

so you can't absolutely say that stored energy, the energy that is stored, HAS to come from how we're mostly doing it now. it does if it is sold in today's market.

so generating electricity, or even compressed air directly, if you do THAT cleanly TOO, THEN you have this holy grail of clean, or relatively ALMOST clean, mechanical transportation. one problem at a time. Clean up the grid then after seeing where we are on technology see what is the most effective clean car

there are also energy efficiencies to be gained by a lesser number of public transit vehicules then a large number of individually owned and indentured to, automobiles, and even more, to putting these public vehicules, transportation systems, on some sort of reduced friction guideways, such as flanged wheel on steel rail.

the optimal is to combine all of these advantages, not expect any single one to carry the whole job.

so while a 'clean car' however we achieve THAT is generally a step in a very good direction, it is only after all, one step among several toward and environmentally compatible system of mechanical transportation.

in today's market it is not a clean car and depending on howmuch power it uses may in fact be a more dirty car.

and of course the spoon full of sugar factor can't be overlooked. making the solutions attractive to those who will be using them, in order for them to be implimented at all, sooner then other realities absolutely force them to anyway.

i'm sure that's why cleaner CARS are being promoted, as emotionally attatched to personal transportation as people, most people don't see the hidden costs of, the realities of their indenture to cars as a system.

but the car really isn't the most practical system in a vast diversity of contexts, including the situations the vast majority of people live in today.

this idea of stored/clean energy, compressed air or otherwise, can of course, be even more adventagiously applied to public transit, guideway or even highway, vehicules and systems.

One problem at a time clean energy (id say nuclear but hippies whine about it). with out waiting to see where technology takes us these clean cars are for the most part just a waste of investor money.

Methinks a fuel cell runs at a much lower pressure, as do any natural gas vehicles. Hydrogen can be kept in a hydride form at very low pressure.
Not practically. The energy density becomes nearly as bad as for batteries.

As for fuel cells, I never got the hype about them - yes, a more efficient engine, but heavy and expensive - but they're in no way a requirement for hydrogen, methanol or any other fuel. H2 and CH3OH burn great even in conventional spark-ignition motors.


Yeah, 'cause THAT's important when trying to solve a chemical/mechanical problem.
I'm afraid being ugly as crock won't help sales at all.

There are aerodynamic and good-looking cars, this is neither.

Not practically. The energy density becomes nearly as bad as for batteries.

As for fuel cells, I never got the hype about them - yes, a more efficient engine, but heavy and expensive - but they're in no way a requirement for hydrogen, methanol or any other fuel. H2 and CH3OH burn great even in conventional spark-ignition motors.



I'm afraid being ugly as crock won't help sales at all.

There are aerodynamic and good-looking cars, this is neither.

Then we deserve to be fucked by the oil-producing nations of the world. If it might solve the oil addiction crisis but it's just too darn ugly, then we reject it? Fuck that. It's time Americans grew up and realized that just because Detroit sold us the notion (decades ago) that "we are what we drive" in order to sell more cars more often as styles changed, and made sure that the cars went either obsolete or fell apart in relatively short order -- that doesn't mean we have to continue that. The fact that the US carmakers are financially ruined should make that abundantly clear.

I'm sick of the horsepower/looks-good approach to TRANSPORTATION. Does it get you where you need to go and do it using less resources than we use now? Problem solved.

Then we deserve to be fucked by the oil-producing nations of the world. If it might solve the oil addiction crisis but it's just too darn ugly, then we reject it? Fuck that. It's time Americans grew up and realized that just because Detroit sold us the notion (decades ago) that "we are what we drive" in order to sell more cars more often as styles changed, and made sure that the cars went either obsolete or fell apart in relatively short order -- that doesn't mean we have to continue that. The fact that the US carmakers are financially ruined should make that abundantly clear.

I'm sick of the horsepower/looks-good approach to TRANSPORTATION. Does it get you where you need to go and do it using less resources than we use now? Problem solved.

interestingly its become a two way street with them. it seems they have some what secretly bailed out the US and buy Us bonds when ever china and Japan hesitate to do so, the reason they do so with out Americans buying oil they no longer have the money to bribe their populace not to over throw the monarchy. why is it that oil producers have to be out to get us. The price went up by a lot after the price had been steady for 15-20 years. of course 15 years of inflation makes the price jump. for whatever reason oil seems to correct its price according to inflation in spurts rather then slowly over time like most commodities.

Then we deserve to be fucked by the oil-producing nations of the world. If it might solve the oil addiction crisis but it's just too darn ugly, then we reject it?
Yes. We hire Pininfarina, and make a proper car using the technology.

And I mentioned, it's not only butt-ugly, it's also not very aerodynamic. Which the consumption confirms. 106 mpg? That's good, but only as good as a self-hybridized and modified small hypermiling car. Which isn't as ugly, as small, as slow, or as expensive.


Detroit sold us the notion (decades ago) that "we are what we drive" in order to sell more cars more often as styles changed, and made sure that the cars went either obsolete or fell apart in relatively short order
The '60s Detroit cars are styled timelessly, and take decades to stop going, let alone fall apart. Their huge gas-guzzling engines killed them, not their styling or build quality.

Gas-guzzling engines the SUV craze returned to.

I'm sick of the horsepower/looks-good approach to TRANSPORTATION. Does it get you where you need to go and do it using less resources than we use now? Problem solved.
Horsepower is important if you're trying to transport things, as it impacts how fast (if at all) you can move yourself and your crap from point A to point B. If a car only moves at 35 miles an hour or can't handle a muddy/snowy/shitty road, it is useless for anyone who might need to leave their immediate urban surroundings (aka, most Americans).
I agree that style/appearance concerns are asinine, but they're part of human nature. Detroit didn't invent the fashion or jewelry industry.

Not a car I'd ever need
For commuting I use this:
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/skoda3/2-tramcar-czech.jpg

When I do need a car I usually either have to move lots of stuff or to make 500+ miles trips. Sometimes both.

The biggest problem in the US is that most people think that mass transport is only for the poor. I have a friend in SF that lived next to a BART station and worked next to another one downtown. He used to drive dayly to work, most of the time alone.

The biggest problem in the US is that most people think that mass transport is only for the poor. I have a friend in SF that lived next to a BART station and worked next to another one downtown. He used to drive dayly to work, most of the time alone.

I'd say the biggest problem with mass transit in the US is that many people believe it doesn't exist, largely because it doesn't in many places. When I lived in France and Germany I took the bus and train everywhere I went. I really wish I had those options at home.

Not a car I'd ever need
For commuting I use this:
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/skoda3/2-tramcar-czech.jpg

When I do need a car I usually either have to move lots of stuff or to make 500+ miles trips. Sometimes both.

The biggest problem in the US is that most people think that mass transport is only for the poor. I have a friend in SF that lived next to a BART station and worked next to another one downtown. He used to drive dayly to work, most of the time alone.

You do realize that not everywhere in the US has decent mass transit, right? Where I live right now the buses only run until 6PM and they leave out a good half of the city or more.

Not a car I'd ever need
For commuting I use this:
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/skoda3/2-tramcar-czech.jpg

When I do need a car I usually either have to move lots of stuff or to make 500+ miles trips. Sometimes both.

The biggest problem in the US is that most people think that mass transport is only for the poor. I have a friend in SF that lived next to a BART station and worked next to another one downtown. He used to drive dayly to work, most of the time alone.

Even the poor have their own cars.
Mass transit is for European tourist.

Even the poor have their own cars.
Mass transit is for European tourist.

Where do 'even the poor' have their own cars?

Mass transit is one of the biggest weaknesses of the US. Partly because of it's size, sure... but mainly because there's just apathy about it.

Uh, read the article much?

actually, no. skimmed the headlines and first few paragraphs, then got bored

That is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. For fucks sake, if these companies actually made good looking cars, then perhaps people would actually start buying their products, and there will be less pollution.

You do realize that not everywhere in the US has decent mass transit, right? Where I live right now the buses only run until 6PM and they leave out a good half of the city or more.

I lived in Portland, OR and used the bus (usually empty) to get downtown.
My scoolmates tought me a crazy european because I sometimes WALKED home (about 1.5 mile).
I travelled much of the Bay Area by (usually empty) mass transit...
People in the US won't use mass transit even when they have it.

If I remember correctly, didn't (or isn't) some legislators in California trying to ban electric cars and this air car from the roads since they do not make enough noise to alert the blind pedestrians that a car is approaching.

For those to lazy to google,

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-prius-052808.html
http://www.manufacturing.net/News-California-Green-Cars-Need-More-Noise.aspx?menuid=284
http://www.motorauthority.com/california-studying-ways-to-make-hybrids-louder.html

That's why only gangstas are allowed to drive them - they place their music really loud.

Why does it have to be so ugly? I mean.. seriously.. ugly...

I really like the concept but I'm not sure how comfortable it would be. How many people does it seat? 1?
I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with it.

I'd consider it. If it'd help more than what we use now, why not?

I lived in Portland, OR and used the bus (usually empty) to get downtown.
My scoolmates tought me a crazy european because I sometimes WALKED home (about 1.5 mile).
I travelled much of the Bay Area by (usually empty) mass transit...
People in the US won't use mass transit even when they have it.

walking and buses are for communist. Drive your car even if you go next door.

Why does it have to be so ugly? I mean.. seriously.. ugly...
Because most greenies have problems even with common sense, let alone more advanced thought. They are never thinking on a large scale, from all sides, about how to bring a net improvement, only about doing some green thing... ah. Pointless.

What people need is an actual car with low emissions, which could be smaller, but then cost cheaper. They don't need a bastard child of Peel P50, Smart and a gas cylinder.

I say most, not all. The Tesla Company was doing it right, although they did go a bit ahead of the time. Though I don't think they were greenies in the first place.


How many people does it seat? 1?
After buying such a car, it's not like you'd have more than 0 people to ride with you.


I'd consider it. If it'd help more than what we use now, why not?
...Because after considering, you'd probably reject it. Or have another car, and this one would spend most of its life in the garage. Like celebs buy Smarts only to never even learn how one looks.

Because most greenies have problems even with common sense, let alone more advanced thought. They are never thinking on a large scale, from all sides, about how to bring a net improvement, only about doing some green thing... ah. Pointless.

What people need is an actual car with low emissions, which could be smaller, but then cost cheaper. They don't need a bastard child of Peel P50, Smart and a gas cylinder.

I say most, not all. The Tesla Company was doing it right, although they did go a bit ahead of the time. Though I don't think they were greenies in the first place.

After buying such a car, it's not like you'd have more than 0 people to ride with you.


I'm just addressing something that is a serious issue on the American market... one that even I, a single male living by himself find important.
When I and pretty much anyone buys a vehicle they look at:

Utility: Can I fit my groceries in there? If I have kids can I put them in it with me? How many passengers can I possibly fit in this vehicle?
From the pictures, I am not sure that it has much.

Safety: Does it have airbags or other safety features? How well would it hold up if I say... hit a deer or something?
From the listed price... not really.

Cost: Whats the insurance on this?
Hell if I know...

The Average Consumers in the USA are not going to spend $20,000 on something that doesn't meet all their needs (or what they think they need) just because it pollutes less when for $12,000 to $35,000* will get all that. Thats why SUVs and Minivans are so popular here.

*The prices are for good condition used, and brand new vehicles I have seen in car lots.

actually, no. skimmed the headlines and first few paragraphs, then got bored

Then mightn't you shut your hole on the issue?

One problem at a time clean energy (id say nuclear but hippies whine about it). with out waiting to see where technology takes us these clean cars are for the most part just a waste of investor money.

it is for precisely all of the reasons you've mentioned, that a one step at at time approach is insufficient.

nuclear isn't that clean, only by comparison with burning anything else is it at all. monumental problems with waste disposal and security. completely unneccessary. but i wouldn't throw it out with the bath water as a supliment, as a fill in for whatever last few percentage points of demand fail to be satisfied by even more sustainable means.

clean cars alone ARE a waste of investment, in the abscence of a balanced transportation infrastructure.

but they ARE an improvement on such things as war as an energy policy, or throwing away everything to drill for the last few drops of remaining crude.

Got some proof to back that up?

Yep:

1) It has a horse, so it looks cooler by default. *and* sets more people!
2) It has a horse, so it's got more horsepower than a car that doesn't exist yet. ;)
3) IT'S A JOKE!!! (Geez!)

Not a car I'd ever need
For commuting I use this:
http://www.railway-technology.com/contractor_images/skoda3/2-tramcar-czech.jpg

When I do need a car I usually either have to move lots of stuff or to make 500+ miles trips. Sometimes both.

The biggest problem in the US is that most people think that mass transport is only for the poor. I have a friend in SF that lived next to a BART station and worked next to another one downtown. He used to drive dayly to work, most of the time alone.

Those look so much better than the old trams! Are the tickets still on the honor system? :)

Actually, the problem is that the US is the size of Europe and is spread out. While there IS mass transit in every city with a football team, it is not cost effective outside the cities. (For example, the Washington DC and Praha metros are remarkably similar.)

It all comes down to density: NYC lives on it's subways. Boston? Nope.

walking and buses are for communist. Drive your car even if you go next door.

You made my point, thank you Sir.

Those look so much better than the old trams! Are the tickets still on the honor system? :)

Actually, the problem is that the US is the size of Europe and is spread out. While there IS mass transit in every city with a football team, it is not cost effective outside the cities. (For example, the Washington DC and Praha metros are remarkably similar.)

It all comes down to density: NYC lives on it's subways. Boston? Nope.

The old trams are still better... And still running too.
Honor system?

Praha is killing the last die hards that wouldn't use mass transit by making all parking places either for residential* use or paid. The flood a couple years back helped too.

* You actually have to pay 700 Kc/year even if you're a resident

The old trams are still better... And still running too.
Honor system?

Praha is killing the last die hards that wouldn't use mass transit by making all parking places either for residential* use or paid. The flood a couple years back helped too.

* You actually have to pay 700 Kc/year even if you're a resident

Honor system... the punch-tickets one buys at the tobacco shops.

It's a good idea, particularly since the city is fairly compact and (let's face it) was laid out without cars in mind. It also can't "pull a Vienna" and simple raze the city walls to get a Ringstrasse. ;)

Honor system... the punch-tickets one buys at the tobacco shops.

It's a good idea, particularly since the city is fairly compact and (let's face it) was laid out without cars in mind. It also can't "pull a Vienna" and simple raze the city walls to get a Ringstrasse. ;)

Oh, you've been here a long time ago... The tickets have not been punch trough quite a while.
But yes, you still can buy them 26 Kc (about 1 euro) for a 75 minute ride.

ZPM = fail.

Tesla = win.

There are a number of people here who have home-built and conversion electric cars that get better range & performance, plus don't look like a Jetsons design reject.

it is for precisely all of the reasons you've mentioned, that a one step at at time approach is insufficient.

Unless of course the step the infrastructure takes makes this car irrelevant then it was just a bunch of hot air and a waste of money.

nuclear isn't that clean, only by comparison with burning anything else is it at all. monumental problems with waste disposal and security. completely unneccessary. but i wouldn't throw it out with the bath water as a supliment, as a fill in for whatever last few percentage points of demand fail to be satisfied by even more sustainable means.

Dump waste in Marianas trench get pulled into the mantle before the sealed cask breaks. Cheap and effective waste disposal for nuclear. As for security in this world any power generation source will require more. Wind and solar will require that the batteries(or other storage medium) and transmission lines be much more secure then they are today.
Nuclear should probably make up about 80% (and I hate to say it) like the French example.

clean cars alone ARE a waste of investment, in the abscence of a balanced transportation infrastructure.
Which is a waste of investment in the US because Americans don't ride them. So we would need some sort of draconian mandatory ride the bus/rail law.

but they ARE an improvement on such things as war as an energy policy, or throwing away everything to drill for the last few drops of remaining crude.

We are only drilling where companies think they will make some profit so not really throwing anything away.

Praha is killing the last die hards that wouldn't use mass transit by making all parking places either for residential* use or paid. The flood a couple years back helped too.
Here's the difference between old European cities and US.

Old European cities weren't built for cars. US was. More than that, it was built around cars. US doesn't have much if any old architecture to treasure, and half the US population has private homes in suburbs. Suburbs in US are a unique form of development, since, unlike suburbs elsewhere, they aren't old villages that joined with the city, they aren't self-contained communities, they are just housing arrays, often with no services. Exurbs are better, but require even more driving.

What US needs is some mass transit, but mostly it's fuel efficient or oil-independent cars. And I don't mean city cars like Smart, I mean actual cars designed to travel across the highways. Give them the power, as electric motors don't waste more fuel just because their max power is higher. Give them proper interiors.

Tesla Roadster is one of the proper cars, and it's a good example of how to do it. Except make it more affordable. Replace the expensive Lotus chassis with a cheap Toyota Celica or MR2 one, replace the expensive Li-Ion batteries with cheap Ni-Cd ones. Add a light motorcycle engine to avoid running out of fuel, connect it to the generator (always). But keep the car desirable. Beautiful, well handling, capable. Not a shed on wheels, but a good car with a different drivetrain. Affordable, clean, reasonably comfortable, satisfying.

Here's the difference between old European cities and US.

Old European cities weren't built for cars. US was. More than that, it was built around cars. US doesn't have much if any old architecture to treasure, and half the US population has private homes in suburbs. Suburbs in US are a unique form of development, since, unlike suburbs elsewhere, they aren't old villages that joined with the city, they aren't self-contained communities, they are just housing arrays, often with no services. Exurbs are better, but require even more driving.

What US needs is some mass transit, but mostly it's fuel efficient or oil-independent cars. And I don't mean city cars like Smart, I mean actual cars designed to travel across the highways. Give them the power, as electric motors don't waste more fuel just because their max power is higher. Give them proper interiors.

Tesla Roadster is one of the proper cars, and it's a good example of how to do it. Except make it more affordable. Replace the expensive Lotus chassis with a cheap Toyota Celica or MR2 one, replace the expensive Li-Ion batteries with cheap Ni-Cd ones. Add a light motorcycle engine to avoid running out of fuel, connect it to the generator (always). But keep the car desirable. Beautiful, well handling, capable. Not a shed on wheels, but a good car with a different drivetrain. Affordable, clean, reasonably comfortable, satisfying.

People are pushing new technology here, and that gives them a unique opportunity - the chance to change perceptions.... as some hybrids already have, to an extent.

Cars have largely been tied to one design for half a century or more, and the specialisation in the market has largely been of a function-following-form type, rather than vice versa.

We'll see how it pans out. We'll probably end up with the same basic designs on our roads, because markets tend to change slowly... but the market is aware of other possibilities now.

So... grumbling about a new design not looking like a toyota... is kinda missing the point. Completely.

As a blind person, I am wondering what methods have been discussed that would make these ultra-high mileage cars produce about as much noise as their gasguzzling counterparts. I know this was brought up earlier in the thread, and I was wondering what the current status was on the "quiet car problem".

Not pollution free. Try again.

The expertise needed to build a compressed air car, or CAV, is not rocket science, either. Years-old, off-the-shelf technology uses compressed air to drive old-fashioned car engine pistons instead of combusting gas or diesel fuel to create a burst of air to do the same thing.

Doesn't need to burn fossil fuels, try again.

People are pushing new technology here, and that gives them a unique opportunity - the chance to change perceptions.... as some hybrids already have, to an extent.
To change the perceptions - but why, just for the change?

What they've created is an abomination, a failure of both form and function. No one needs the retarded round windows which won't let you see other cars on the road.



So... grumbling about a new design not looking like a toyota... is kinda missing the point. Completely.
It's not a new design, it's a new engine. A car is a car. It's not flying or something.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/fi/19/18/07.gif

Wow...what a butt ugly car. I would not be caught driving it.

To change the perceptions - but why, just for the change?

What they've created is an abomination, a failure of both form and function. No one needs the retarded round windows which won't let you see other cars on the road.




It's not a new design, it's a new engine. A car is a car. It's not flying or something.

Maybe its supposed to make people feel like they are in a spaceship.

Doesn't need to burn fossil fuels, try again.

On highways, the CAV can cruise at interstate speeds for nearly 800 miles with a small motor that compresses outside air to keep the tank filled. The motor isn't finicky about fuel. It will burn gasoline or diesel as well as biodiesel, ethanol or vegetable oil." According to the article that mode gets approximately 106 MPG

Contains smaller version of internal combustion engine to power the internal compressed air engine to go at reasonable speed.

I lived in Portland, OR and used the bus (usually empty) to get downtown.
My scoolmates tought me a crazy european because I sometimes WALKED home (about 1.5 mile).
I travelled much of the Bay Area by (usually empty) mass transit...
People in the US won't use mass transit even when they have it.

The crowded buses I road in Denver would disagree (sometimes they would try to tell me the bus was to full for me to get on. Emphasis on try, no way in hell was I going to wait another hour to get home from work.)

As a blind person, I am wondering what methods have been discussed that would make these ultra-high mileage cars produce about as much noise as their gasguzzling counterparts. I know this was brought up earlier in the thread, and I was wondering what the current status was on the "quiet car problem".

Someone brought that up earlier in the thread and I suggested either a bell/whistle that would be powered by the wind created by the cars motion or an electronic device and a speaker that would make it make a Jetsons car noise.

Contains smaller version of internal combustion engine to power the internal compressed air engine to go at reasonable speed.

not to mention requires energy to fill the compressed air tank.

Contains smaller version of internal combustion engine to power the internal compressed air engine to go at reasonable speed.

Ethanol, and vegitable oil are fossil fuels?

Ethanol, and vegitable oil are fossil fuels?

No but burn them and pollution comes out.

To change the perceptions - but why, just for the change?


See, once again, you're talking like a Republican. Change isn't a bad thing, you know.

The auto industry is stagnant. It's been a dead man walking for half a century, with nothing changing but the occassional trinket or bauble.

And because people are fundamentally conservative consumers, by and large, there's been no real way to change that - except with tiny gestures like the
C5.


What they've created is an abomination, a failure of both form and function. No one needs the retarded round windows which won't let you see other cars on the road.


If your function is to carry a person around, fuel-efficiently, it's actually a pretty good fit for both form and function. Round windows are a detail. You're basically playing the part here of some opponent of Ford himself saying "It will never catch on, it's the wrong colour".


It's not a new design, it's a new engine. A car is a car. It's not flying or something.

So - the design was wrong, and you've already pointed out that it's NOT the same as other ones... but it's also NOT a new design?

I've said it before. I could mail in my responses - you destroy most of your own arguments yourself.

Actually, the problem is that the US is the size of Europe and is spread out. While there IS mass transit in every city with a football team, it is not cost effective outside the cities.

Calling what Detroit has "mass transit" is very generous. The People Mover would be a sick joke if it weren't true.

Oh, you've been here a long time ago... The tickets have not been punch trough quite a while.
But yes, you still can buy them 26 Kc (about 1 euro) for a 75 minute ride.

I was last in Praha in April 2006... I always stay at a little place in Zizkov at the bottom of the hill near the war museum. Anyway, I was still punching tickets last time I was there. :)

I remember 12 Kc and I think 18 Kc?

Calling what Detroit has "mass transit" is very generous. The People Mover would be a sick joke if it weren't true.

Hey, I didn't say it was necessarily good mass transit. :D

Those things are cute. Purple ones plz

I was last in Praha in April 2006... I always stay at a little place in Zizkov at the bottom of the hill near the war museum. Anyway, I was still punching tickets last time I was there. :)

I remember 12 Kc and I think 18 Kc?

LOL, I live in Praha 3 - Zizkov.
Anyways, we are having a little misunderstanding right now.
The hystory of prague public transport tickets (http://prahamhd.vhd.cz/jizdenky.htm). Half page trough you'll notice tickets that had to be perforated by the passenger to be valid.

Now the prices are: 18 Kc (1 US$) no transfer ride; 26 Kc (1 €) full ticket; 100 Kc 24 hour ticket; 500 Kc 5 days ticket.

So we would need some sort of draconian mandatory ride the bus/rail law.

not at all. just stop manufacturing and importing cars, paving roadways, and building gas stations. anyone who still wanted to make their own for themselves would have their own roads they made for themselves and their fellow auto hobbiests to themselves to enjoy to their heart's content.

and of course, the tax money saved by not subsidising the oil and auto and paving industries, by building paved roads and highways, could be spent on REAL sustainable transportation.

and by scalling system form factors to demand levels, demand would be sufficient in far more places then currently imagined. and where demand would be too low for even hernia gauge ride on trains for transit, people could ride robotic solar battery powered riding lawn mowers.

95% of people DO however, live where population density is MORE then sufficient. its the other density, inside of people's heads, do mostly to all pervasive propiganda, that is the real problem.

LOL, I live in Praha 3 - Zizkov.
Anyways, we are having a little misunderstanding right now.
The hystory of prague public transport tickets (http://prahamhd.vhd.cz/jizdenky.htm). Half page trough you'll notice tickets that had to be perforated by the passenger to be valid.

Now the prices are: 18 Kc (1 US$) no transfer ride; 26 Kc (1 €) full ticket; 100 Kc 24 hour ticket; 500 Kc 5 days ticket.

Thank you for the link!

Anyway, the trams in Czech (I have been to Brno & Plzen) are well run. Also in Slovakia -- Bratislava & Kosice.

I wish that they would bring back the streetcars in the US, but it would never happen. Even though they used to be here...

http://www.bera.org/trolleytowns/trolleyhtml/new_haven.html

Which is a waste of investment in the US because Americans don't ride them. So we would need some sort of draconian mandatory ride the bus/rail law.

Not really, Prague and Milano are going the expensive parking way.
In many parts of Prague now you just cannot park unless you are resident. In these parts short time parking places are provided but are extremely expensive. And parking where not permitted is not advised (stiff fine + your car removed).
On the other hand on the skirts of the city Park/Ride places are provided at minimum fee (in some of them you may park for free if you have a Mass Transit ticket).

The results are that less cars go into the city and much less traffic.

not at all. just stop manufacturing and importing cars, paving roadways, and building gas stations. anyone who still wanted to make their own for themselves would have their own roads they made for themselves and their fellow auto hobbiests to themselves to enjoy to their heart's content.
And most would simply drive offroaders.

Cheaper than roads, and a lot cheaper than moving (not that your suburban house is worth any real money now).

And most would simply drive offroaders.

Cheaper than roads, and a lot cheaper than moving (not that your suburban house is worth any real money now).

and the loser would be the environment as we tear up dirt at all levels.

And most would simply drive offroaders.

not quite so simple, not if they had to make them themselves. and have you ever actually DRIVEN an 'off road' vehicule in an actually roadless area, or even on a forest service fire break?

believe it or not, i have. and its a whole heck of a lot different then driving that polished up 'cowboy cadilack' around the hood, pretending to be the great outdoorsman.

i rather speculate this would not be the course taken, however much a few might dream it, by a somewhat more rational majority.

there's also the minor little detail of running out of the availability of liquid fuel on the scale of its current consumptions in somewhere around 40 years, plus or minus 20 or 30.

natural gas is another 80 years AT CURRENT RATE OF CONSUPTION. at the rate oil based fuels are currently consumed, i rather suspect that figure would be considerably less.

and what does that leave? you're 4x4's are going to be coal fired maybe?
possibly for the dedicated certainly, but for the vast and mechanically ignorant majority? why do i somehow doubt this?

oh i forget, you're home made 4x4 is going to be nuclear powered, right? and you're going to be able to fuel this?

not quite so simple, not if they had to make them themselves.
But people DO make all cars themselves already. They band together, make cars, and exchange the excess for other goods.

Or are you going to have Staatspolizei patrols breaking into private property without warrant, searching and arresting anyone found making a car not alone?


and have you ever actually DRIVEN an 'off road' vehicule in an actually roadless area, or even on a forest service fire break?
Hahahaha. You're asking me if I've driven in roadless areas?
My vehicle is *modified* with a low-range gearbox and a high-clearance suspension. And it's a Land Cruiser 80, not some city jeep.


i rather speculate this would not be the course taken, however much a few might dream it, by a somewhat more rational majority.
It's not like they really have a choice. Well, other than selling their home for $1000 as it's now worthless and moving to a cramped studio in the city.

Plus, if a lot of people drive along a wilderness area, it becomes a trail. Deadly for a road car, but OK for actual offroaders.


and what does that leave? you're 4x4's are going to be coal fired maybe?
possibly for the dedicated certainly, but for the vast and mechanically ignorant majority?
Coal-fired, maybe. Or wood-fired. Wood is processed under heat in a special generator, releasing gas, which is collected. Usually these devices just burn the gas, as it's more efficient than outright burning wood (leaves less carbon in the ash). But the gas can just as well be compressed and fuel a vehicle.

But really no, it will all be much simpler, maybe coal-based synthetic fuel, because you won't be able to ban all private enterprise.

not banning "private enterprise" as such at all (other then as a completely local option, on a village by village and neighborhood by neighborhood basis), just corporate mass production. basically limiting individual production to personal use quantities. generally that means at most three of them. and that only for 'problem' artifacts like cars, guns, simular to the exception currently made for certain recreational neurotropic substances, et c. no ban on "private enterprise" mass production of useful or decorative items.

so what do you have against solar/battery powered robotic 'lawnmowers' (i.e. mini-ag and construction machines) with a riding seat option? psionically programable of course (that have hydraulic arms to lift themselves over obsticals like fallen logs).

not banning "private enterprise" as such at all (other then as a completely local option, on a village by village and neighborhood by neighborhood basis), just corporate mass production. basically limiting individual production to personal use quantities. generally that means at most three of them. and that only for 'problem' artifacts like cars, guns, simular to the exception currently made for certain recreational neurotropic substances, et c. no ban on "private enterprise" mass production of useful or decorative items.

so what do you have against solar/battery powered robotic 'lawnmowers' (i.e. mini-ag and construction machines) with a riding seat option? psionically programable of course (that have hydraulic arms to lift themselves over obsticals like fallen logs).

Sorry for going off on a tangent here, but something you said makes me curious.

I already own three cars, and I'd like to buy more. Let's say I wanted to amass a collection of 100 cars; mostly cars that have been produced a while ago. These cars will spend nearly all of their time in my garage.

Now then, if you were in charge of your own nation, whose laws were based on your ideals, and I was a citizen of that nation, would I be prohibited from owning all of these cars, or would I get a free pass because I'm only collecting cars that already exist, and not producing any new ones?

If I remember correctly, didn't (or isn't) some legislators in California trying to ban electric cars and this air car from the roads since they do not make enough noise to alert the blind pedestrians that a car is approaching.


That is absolutly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. They're going to put a ban on improvement (in an environmentally strict state, mind you) so that blind people can hear the car? They could just add a noise maker to the engine or something!

Not really, Prague and Milano are going the expensive parking way.
In many parts of Prague now you just cannot park unless you are resident. In these parts short time parking places are provided but are extremely expensive. And parking where not permitted is not advised (stiff fine + your car removed).
On the other hand on the skirts of the city Park/Ride places are provided at minimum fee (in some of them you may park for free if you have a Mass Transit ticket).

The results are that less cars go into the city and much less traffic.

Our cities just don't have that sort of population density. even new york has half the density of most European capitals. so no need to limit parking to residents just yet.

That is absolutly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. They're going to put a ban on improvement (in an environmentally strict state, mind you) so that blind people can hear the car? They could just add a noise maker to the engine or something!

It is Californian tradition to do everything in the most ass way possible.

That is absolutly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. They're going to put a ban on improvement (in an environmentally strict state, mind you) so that blind people can hear the car? They could just add a noise maker to the engine or something!

they just passed it San Fransisco is trying to stop it in court so they dont lose their electric buss system

Our cities just don't have that sort of population density. even new york has half the density of most European capitals. so no need to limit parking to residents just yet.

The limit is to prevent people from DRIVING to the city. If you cannot park or if parking is more expensive than riding the mass transit many people start using the mass transit, the mass transit increases revenue and you can have better mass transit. Better mass transit means that more population is served, no parking zones can be increased, more people ride mass transit...

It is not a perfect system, but it prevents people from driving downtown unnecessaryly.